I guess if you just shooting wildlife that is still then a 5D mark 3 will do just fine, But if your after wildlife in action then 12 fps is were its at. I have both camera's and I have not had any issues with the battery life on the 1 DX and have been shooting the this camera since mid July of 2012

To the original post and poster, East Wind Photography (I don't want to quote the whole post):

While I have no real world experience with either camera yet (I’ve only edited some 5D3 raw files in both CS5 and CS6, and shot with it briefly)…let me point out some obvious oddities I noticed:

1) You limited yourself to ISO 1000 or below. That’s fine for shooting ducks in bright sunlight…not so nice for shooting woodducks in dawn or dusk hours (the only time they show up at my pond, or most anywhere in my area). Also not so good for shooting any other type wildlife in low light. Some of us like the lighting effect of shooting in low light, or low sun…or even post sunset or pre dawn. It can add drama, and the colors can be nice. And many animals are simply on the move at those times. Mid day light is also boring, and a bit played out. Some people like me, enjoy the idea of pushing shutter speed beyond 1/2000 in less than ideal light. I also like to capture things like deer on the run, at sunset.

2) You’re saying 12 fps isn’t necessary for you. I say it really depends on the speed of the animal. I’ve rented the predecessor to the 1Dx, and found its 10 fps entirely too slow for trying to capture small birds in flight (something most bird people never do anyway…which is part of the reason it appeals to me. Anyone can slap on a supertele and shoot a bird once it is resting on a limb, or swimming slowly in a pond or lake.) The ideal camera for small birds in flight, would be a high speed video camera, but of course those still images don’t print very big (especially if cropping is necessary)…and high speed cameras cost more than the new Porsche I would rather purchase for that amount of money.

3) It seems to me, that you may well have had your mind made up before you did this comparison, since you deliberately are faulting the 1Dx where it is weak, and in the areas it’s not designed to excel in…such as: A price range similar to the 5D3; the image’s pixel dimensions; the larger camera size; the increased battery demand; the supposed lack of DR at or below ISO 1000 (If you need that, buy a Nikon D800…it’s better in that range than your 5D3, and produces a radically larger image size to boot). The 1Dx is meant for people who aren’t afraid to occasionally shoot at or above ISO 10,000, let alone 1000! Besides, even the 5D3 doesn’t lose significant resolution until ISO 12,800 (tests have shown this). If you are one of those people (and it seems like there’s too many of you), that only want to shoot pictures that produce very little noise WITHOUT employing any of the excellent NR methods available today (many of them lose essentially no detail)…again, I have to wonder why? That just seems silly to me. The idea that “I will never shoot a picture that requires any sort of NR at all, all sliders will be at zero, come hell or high water”. And yet you imply you’re NOT a pixel peeper??? ONLY A PIXEL PEEPER would care about tiny amounts of noise when viewed at 100%!!

4) As for “pixel peepers”…anyone who spends more than $500 on any type of camera, and doesn’t do at least some amount of pixel peeping, is wasting their time and money. Digital files are meant to be peeped at the edit stage. Digital files are meant to be edited, enhanced, and optimized in a creative way (whether minimalist or extreme.) What are you, some kind of camera Quaker or something? Sorry, but I see photographers as indeed a type of artist. We are not simply robots who don’t think for ourselves. We interpret the world around us in a creative way, and we aren't afraid to use any tool at our disposal.

To fault the 1Dx for not being everything a 5D3 is, to you, is not all that valid an exercise. I will grant you, some of your findings are worthwhile to read, but I’m not sure most wildlife photographers will agree with your conclusion. I will also grant you that, given the price, the size, and the 5D3’s AF sensor (a feature pioneered FIRST for the 1Dx)…then the 5D3 represents an extremely capable camera for most uses.

But that’s nothing most people don’t already know. So basically, much of what you have said, is nothing new.

What would have been interesting to me, is if you compared the low light AF performance of both cameras in servo mode, and especially the AF speed. For example, a duck that is flying off the water toward you, and then panning back to another duck (or perhaps a moose), that is at the far end of the lake...and going back and forth between the two separate subjects...all while the duck in the foreground closes in on your location quickly. And do all this at sunset...now that would have told me more of what I wanted to know about whether the 1Dx is a more capable camera overall, than the 5D3. I'm guessing it is. Doesn't mean it's a better overall "value", of course. But value is relative.

Thank you so much for the feedback, EWP. As someone in the market for a good birding camera, I've been considering the merits of both the 5D III and 1D X. I really don't want to spend the kind of money I would have to on the 1D X, as I am primarily a hobbyist, with a sale of a print every great once in a while. Your opinion on the 1D X shutter sound might be sealing the deal for the 5D III...I think a quiet shutter would be very helpful when it comes to shooting jittery birds up close (even within a blind).

• Shooting up to ISO 1000 I did not see any improvement in noise levels. I’m sure it’s better but not enough to notice in real world situations.

This is not really surprising. The improvements in ISO are really only going to be apparent at higher ISO settings. While the improvement in full well capacity for the 1D X, thanks to the larger pixels and higher Q.E. (47%) over past-generation sensors (which were closer to 25-38%), will result in the same absolute improvement at all ISO settings, however the relative improvement will increase as ISO is increased, thanks to the nature of photon shot noise. At lower ISO settings, a well-exposed (ETTRed) photo will have roughly the same absolute differences in pixel saturation for a given tone as at higher ISO settings, however because the maximum saturation is lower by orders of magnitude at say ISO 12800 than at ISO 100, those same absolute differences become much larger relative differences, and appear to result in far more noise.

At ISO 3200, for example, the 1D X has a three-fold advantage over my 7D. The 7D is quite noisy at ISO 3200, but the 1D X is incredibly clear. From the bird photography I've seen that was taken with the 1D X, photos taken at ISO 16000 to 25600 appear to be about as noisy as ISO 3200 on my 7D. That is nearly a three-fold improvement in high ISO performance (and probably more so, given the much better editing and noise removal latitude that the 1D series has historically offered over lesser models.) I would be willing to bet that you could push ISO to 6400 or more in your work, and in comparison to older cameras you have used the 1D X would fare increasingly better as ISO was increased.

Jrista, well said, although regarding ISO, I did mention that in my critique of his findings.

It really all just depends on if you want to use NR in post, or not. If you're spending the kind of money we're talking about here, but you "can't be bothered" to spend much time in post...then you're really just playing, and not doing serious work, or worse...not making full use of the tools you've bought.

Oh, and Jrista, regarding what you said in another thread about the native ISO, and how the settings above that are fake...I always knew that. However, isn't the RAW file storing more bits of information at the time of capture, if those settings are used to boost the exposure level up to normal...as compared to underexposing at the time of capture at a lower ISO setting (and then boosting exposure by 3 or 4 stops in post)?

I.e., if you don't use the boosted ISO at capture, then the file that gets stored, is smaller than a resulting file where the boost was used to bring the exposure up to what the camera says is normal. (The file size goes from say 20MB, down to 12MB or less).

I mean, otherwise, what's the point of ever trying to get the exposure right at capture? You're saying that you have to get the exposure right at capture, except when using an ISO that is above the native? I don't understand how this could be, since the file that gets stored, has less information, if it is underexposed by 4 stops. Sure that information is stored based on a boosted sensor's output (thus you are seeing a reduced dynamic range from the sensor, with all the other unwanted artifacts)...but the file itself has more bits, does it not?

Awesome! On the ISO topic I didn't find the differences between the 1DX and 5DIII to be so significant to really make much difference. I took a number of shots with both at sunset and some after the sun went down. I ran the ISO up to 3200 and the noise on the 1DX was not much better than the 5DIII and in fact the noise patterns on the 1DX images were larger and more difficult to make them less obvious.

For those that like to shoot at higher ISO's, go for it but I found the IQ even on the 1DX to be sub par for anything other than an image that would be offset printed. It is vastly improved over the 7D and earlier models. However my comparison was with the 5DIII as both already blow the doors off the 7D and earlier models.

I totally understand those who enjoy shooting in low light and the 1DX and 5DIII open up the possibilities...However, the IQ above ISO1000 on either (vastly improved) over 7D and 5DII, still does not provide the level of quality that I could enlarge and hang on my wall. It's personal preference but I can tell you that my customers enjoy no grain 20x30's more than ones that are noisy taken at ISO1000 or higher.

So for someone who wants the best value for their dollar I would recommend the 5DIII.

Thank you so much for the feedback, EWP. As someone in the market for a good birding camera, I've been considering the merits of both the 5D III and 1D X. I really don't want to spend the kind of money I would have to on the 1D X, as I am primarily a hobbyist, with a sale of a print every great once in a while. Your opinion on the 1D X shutter sound might be sealing the deal for the 5D III...I think a quiet shutter would be very helpful when it comes to shooting jittery birds up close (even within a blind).

• Shooting up to ISO 1000 I did not see any improvement in noise levels. I’m sure it’s better but not enough to notice in real world situations.

This is not really surprising. The improvements in ISO are really only going to be apparent at higher ISO settings. While the improvement in full well capacity for the 1D X, thanks to the larger pixels and higher Q.E. (47%) over past-generation sensors (which were closer to 25-38%), will result in the same absolute improvement at all ISO settings, however the relative improvement will increase as ISO is increased, thanks to the nature of photon shot noise. At lower ISO settings, a well-exposed (ETTRed) photo will have roughly the same absolute differences in pixel saturation for a given tone as at higher ISO settings, however because the maximum saturation is lower by orders of magnitude at say ISO 12800 than at ISO 100, those same absolute differences become much larger relative differences, and appear to result in far more noise.

At ISO 3200, for example, the 1D X has a three-fold advantage over my 7D. The 7D is quite noisy at ISO 3200, but the 1D X is incredibly clear. From the bird photography I've seen that was taken with the 1D X, photos taken at ISO 16000 to 25600 appear to be about as noisy as ISO 3200 on my 7D. That is nearly a three-fold improvement in high ISO performance (and probably more so, given the much better editing and noise removal latitude that the 1D series has historically offered over lesser models.) I would be willing to bet that you could push ISO to 6400 or more in your work, and in comparison to older cameras you have used the 1D X would fare increasingly better as ISO was increased.

Yep as described earlier I use PS CS5 and shoot everything in RAW. Just to be honest I routinely also use my 5DIII at ISO's higher than 5000 but not for wildlife. I generally try to fill the frame as much as possible in such situations to reduce the size of the noise patterns. However with wildlife, unless you have 200-400 zoom, you often have to crop and that is where the problem lies. When you get to ISO 1000 even on the 1DX, and start cropping, you lose your ability to enlarge or have to post process so much that the image begins to look artificial....and with 18MP you cant crop much...again as compared to the 5DIII where you can cut it a bit deeper. 18MP is nothing to sneeze at though.

For some situations noise (grain) is not a bad thing and as long as it's random and not distracting you can work with it. Especially if you print it on canvas or luster papers. I still have problems when the noise interferes with the ability to split feathers on a bird.

you must have been out fishing too long I do prefer the 5DIII but only after using the 1DX for a couple of weeks. I had higher hopes for the 1DX and had aspired to buy one some day. But I was disappointed in the fact that for the extra 3K I did not see that much over the 5DIII. One of the biggest annoyances I found of the 1dX 12fps drive mode was the sheer noise from the shutter. When I would let it rip, it would actually scare away herons and ducks. All of the work trying to stealthily get close to the subjects was gone in an instant. That was a shock and never have that issue shooting with the 5DIII.

I took the approach of looking at the 1DX from a practical aspect and what I was seeing on my final images comparing the 1DX to the 5DIII. I wasn't basing it on theoretical limits or assigning score ratings. And since I didn't have 6K wrapped up in it I didn't have to justify that by making superior claims on features that I didn't really need, see as useful for the work I was doing, or that it made THAT big of difference in the final image.